S.M. NAWAZ versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE THROUGH SECRETARY
Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Application Service Inquiry Committee, Rehabilitation, Demand Recommendations Applicant was sentenced to mandatory retirement from the job. Was not mentioned in the notice issued on basis The indictment was investigated against the indicator, therefore, no penalty can be imposed. Once the competent authority issued the showcase notice, it was not precluded from adopting a different approach and taking more stringent action, but then the authority should have done three things. First of all, he recorded his reasons for changing his mind as compared to what was on his mind when the first showcase notice was issued. Secondly, the authority should have informed the employee of the reasons for such a change and such change and should have sought a show cause notice against the proposed (i.e., proposed increase) penalty when the employee had to explain or explain the reason. If given the opportunity, the authority can enforce the constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court, the compulsory retirement order was designated and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated, the officials inquiry committee reports and Review the matter based on the inquiry process and make a temporary decision Was calling for the punishment in the circumstances, issue a show cause notice against the proposed sentence and to decide on the issue after the applicant
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
